Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more!

The MASH accounts are available for download. They are made up to 30/4/14, so not quite in sync with the club's.
This is the main bit specific to us:
Also mentions elsewhere that amortisation and impairment on player registrations was only up £4m.

Points-wise rather than positionally, we only finished below last season's total in 3 out of those 10 years, in fact its 3 out of the 14 we were in the PL. The worst we ever did was only 3 points below last season, and in each of those years we were competing in Europe and having a decent run in one or other of the domestic cups, either of which is now seen as a relegation risk and to be avoided.
In Ashley's 7 years, last year has only been bettered twice of course (once only on GD), so you're right we shouldn't be expecting such a high level of performance again this year.

Would be the best move Ashley could make but it wont happen.
The cock ups of the striker situation may force a re-think in transfer negotiation or personnel but I would be surprised if that but Llambias under threat.
This is who we should be directing any protest at.
Wonder how happy Llambias is getting all the stick he does for £100k a year or whatever paltry sum he's on.
Wouldn't be surprised to see him say he's had enough before Ashley pushes him. 54 year old now, hoping at the end of the season he just kicks back and enjoys the Casino business....or retires early.
I must say I was very surprised when I looked at the accounts by how relatively low Delboy's wages were. However consider that:
Ashley is known for dishing out lowish basic pay, but big bonuses based on financial results.
Llambias is the main man in charge of the club, and so would obviously be the biggest winner if any such bonuses were on offer.
Increasing the wage bill would reduce any profits made by the club.
Llambias is the the man in charge of setting the total wage limit and dictating what individual players will be offered in contract negotiations.
Spending money on transfers would reduce any profits made by the club.
Llambias is the man in charge of setting the amount we bid for players the scouts have identified.
Strange isn't it that we struggled to get players to sign new contracts/withdrew contracts which had been agreed on, and never managed to get any of those many strikers we were after "over the line".
I'm sure he's fully committed to doing his best to help the manager to get and keep the best players we can to get the best possible results on the pitch though.
It's very likely that as a senior manager in the company, Pardew would be in receipt of any such bonuses too btw, so hopefully that will soften the blow for him a little and persuade him to stay.

Err, yes, that's all the club's Commercial, Catering & Sponsorship Revenue which understandably fell when we were in the Championship. Generously the money from SD didn't fall while we were in the Championship, it remained at £0.00.
The article also mentions the new sponsorship deals with Puma and NR. Strangely it doesn't mention the great new club branding deal with SD. I wonder why.

The club received no money from SD in 2008 & 2009, in fact we paid the costs for the privilege.
If that wasn't happening to us it would be comical.
I think you've both misunderstood the statement (I'm also pretty sure that SD branding at SJP arrived in 2010?). Anyway, that fee is for services promoting Newcastle, not SD. A statement on SD's promotions isnt relevant to our accounts. Its basically saying that we got assistance in selecting e.g. promotional channels and refining brand messages for NUFC from the enormously powerful and successful marketing department at SD.
It does NOT mean we paid SD £42k to advertised SD at SJP.
I stand corrected.
I don't. That convoluted attempt to try and turn a pretty clear statement around is clearly absurd. Advertising and promotional services were provided BY the club TO an Ashley owned company (obviously SD) and nothing was paid for that service. The cost to the club for setting up/performing the services in FY2008 was £42k.
The only thing correct in that post is that the @SJP and the defacing of the ground didn't start until 2010. I've since got hold of the 2010 accounts which would cover that time, and there's a similar paragraph in the related party transactions section there too. Still not getting paid. This time however it doesn't go into the costs to the club of painting the classy SD logo on the roof, etc.
If money changes hands or services are provided between the club and any companies it's directors have an interest in they have to be declared in the accounts. http://www.frc.org.uk/asb/technical/standards/pub0097.html
The club advertises and promotes SD. Ashley is the owner of the club and the major shareholder of SD. Any money paid by SD to the club would have to be declared in the related party transactions section of the accounts. The accounts state that nothing is being paid for the services provided. Speculate all you want on why the club is not getting paid, but you can't dispute the fact that it's not.

This isnt right, basically theyve punished the non members due to what they assume is trouble caused by people who are not members. Aye its not fair for the majority but thats how it goes. As for ST holders theres nee difference other than you know if your a ST holder you could be traced
Following your previous logic, do you now think it is all long standing ST holders who should take the responsibility and be punished financially for the trouble? It's not fair for the majority but that's how it goes.

You're going to have to explain that one to me. How did the debt increase because it was transferred from an external creditor to Ashley? These clauses are usually at the insistence of the creditor btw.
The debts mainly increased firstly because we started to pay for players up front while selling the same net worth of players but with payments coming in over a number of years, and secondly of course due to the revenue drops due to relegation and lower sponsorship, advertising, and ticket sales.

I wonder where U V thinks the money could come from, maybe he'll answer the question.
I'm too busy with the conundrum of where the money we used to generate with a terrible chairman has gone such that now we're run by such a great businessman we managed to double the club debt in 3 years even though TV revenues shot up when he bought the club and we've made £50m+ profit on selling players.
It's completely bizarre and unexplainable how revenues have dropped when everyone can see how well Mike is doing by putting the best possible people in charge, selling players and cutting costs.
I wonder if Toonpack, or his chums on skunkers, can shed any light on this mystery ?
What's the point when as soon as someone with half a brain actual produces an analysis of the figures they are dismissed with insults and any half-baked opinions like this with no back up are quoted by you here and on Skunkers.
Doesn't matter what the subject, actual facts are ridiculed under the guise of "but we were in Europe" as if that's some kind of ultimate joker which trumps anything.
For starters this lad can either break down his "50m profit" (which I guess includes Carroll which has no bearing on current financial figures) or we could try some actual facts or questions you can't answer like how would Shepherd have refinanced loans since the credit crunch.
http://www.transferleague.co.uk/league-tables/2006-2011.html
The 5 years shown include an £8m spend in 06-07.
Assuming no more debt was built up only £25m of the debt (ie only the footballing part of the debt, not the part which was wasted away on increasing the stadium capacity) would have needed to be refinanced during the credit crunch. That is unless the already agreed refinancing package which was cancelled when Ashley bought the club didn't cover that anyway.
That's less than the debts of the majority of the rest of the clubs in the league, some with only half our revenue at the time. As most of them survived, I would think we could have found some finance from somewhere. If not, and if desperate, we could always have followed the Ashley route of selling our best players to old rivals (though hopefully without employing some of the people he has entrusted with the running of the club it would not have had quite such dire consequences).

I wonder where U V thinks the money could come from, maybe he'll answer the question.
I'm too busy with the conundrum of where the money we used to generate with a terrible chairman has gone such that now we're run by such a great businessman we managed to double the club debt in 3 years even though TV revenues shot up when he bought the club and we've made £50m+ profit on selling players.
It's completely bizarre and unexplainable how revenues have dropped when everyone can see how well Mike is doing by putting the best possible people in charge, selling players and cutting costs.

"Mike Ashley didn't take a penny of the money from the sale of Andy Carroll out of the football club, is has been pumped into keeping the club afloat. Without the sale of Andy Carroll Newcastle United would not be here today, its as simple as that. We have learned from our mistakes, our vision for the next 5 years is blah blah blah..."
"Enrique is not going anywhere."
"Once Jose handed in a transfer request the club had no option but to let him go. I can assure supporters that every penny will go straight back into the team."

I think we'll be getting something, but it will be well below market value.
Despite people saying Ashley doesn't care what we think, he has always gone out of his way to try to put as much of a positive spin on what he does out to the media as is possible. For the first couple of years we never stopped hearing about how he saved the club from near-extinction and how we'd soon be competing for everything. When he's been trying to sell the club, we hear about how he wont just sell to anyone, he wants us in safe hands. When we sacked Hughton for no good reason, it was so we could get someone more experienced in. When we loan out/sell players in January we need for the rest of the season it's so we can free up space/generate cash for transfers to improve the squad in the Summer. Maybe it's down to a desperate need for some to have hope that Ashley is trying to do what's best for the long term good of the club, and not just what's best for himself financially in the short term, but it seems some are taken in by it.
The reason therefore I think it's unlikely that we're getting a decent going rate for all the SD advertising - let alone something above the market rate - is that we haven't heard a peep about it. When we signed a new deal with Northern Rock for half the previous amount and dependant on being in the PL, Llambias was in the press "absolutely delighted" about it. If we were getting £5m+ from SD you can be sure he would have been all over the press mentioning at every possible opportunity how we were lucky to have an owner like Mike who could use his other business to give the club such a great deal. Instead we got:
Subsequently, despite being promoted and immediately being guaranteed to be on the TV more than most others in the division, it seems no-one at all was interested, and we've had to have another year of SD "showcasing" the advertising opportunity. Hmmn.